Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Don't Forget America"

When Die Zeit journalist Jens Jessen urged German viewers of his video commentary last month to forget America, it was another indication of the huge problem the West faces as it prepares for looming challenges. Do Europeans really believe they can address their larger problems alone without continual learning from the United States? Denial of our heightened need for appreciation and cooperation in a globalized community is a dangerous practice Germany and the rest of Europe can ill afford if they are to successfully adapt in a world of climate and cultural change.

As the water level begins to rise and battles over mosques continue in The Netherlands and other European nations, we should more fundamentally consider our requirement for multinational solutions. Even the German Ministry of Interior has recently taken stock of the changing situation when they issued a study about the Muslim community in Germany. These population trends are only the tip of the iceberg as greater migrations should be expected with the Earth heating up and the environment eroding faster in the southern hemisphere. Attempts to attenuate climate change are admirable but a prudent course of action would be to consider the institutional changes now required so the West can best respond to the scenarios the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others have lain out. Arrogance and complacency are not attributes that will ensure we maintain the way of life we enjoy today.

As one who has lived in Europe for many years, I will readily admit that America has much to learn from Germany and its continental brethren on how to live. Recycling and other environmental measures are more highly developed there. The United States should be more receptive next year as a new administration struggles to address the problems it is mired in. America is at the heart of the climate change problem. The Pope and Jared Diamond, a leading American geographer, have both highlighted the dangers of our overwhelming consumption. Diamond recently noted the West consumes at a rate 32 times higher than the rest of the world. Although Europe is doing better in some areas than America, even Europe should not be considered a sustainable model for China and India as they explore how to spend their well-earned wealth. I saw too many BMW and Mercedes SUVs speeding down the autobahns to be comfortable with European consumption models.

America will also most likely be at the heart of the solutions as the West responds to these pressures. In an earlier age, the Soviet Union tried to show the cultural poverty of America running endless stories about inner city slums and industrial decay. As many have observed, Americans are “a society of doers, achievers, and builders.” The internet has reached new heights because of the competitive nature of American entrepreneurs and their ability to respond quickly to a changing environment. Rising energy costs will unleash even greater innovation that Germans should closely watch. Although America has many scars from its battles over civil rights in a multicultural society, there are signs with the strong candidacy of a minority leader and greater youth participation that the strength of American fairness will triumph over petty self-interest. Europe, like a smart gardener, should encourage America to plant new varieties because the soil and roots of our plants are alike in many ways.

The strategic message of Germany and the West should be inclusion, even of the Muslim culture. Germans greatly appreciate the artistry of the Islamic world and many fine carpets are found in their homes. The red mosque in Schloss Schwetzingen is a fine example of this appreciation that Germany has preserved for centuries. This relationship continues with Muslim workers occupying many essential positions in the German workforce. As we work for more comprehensive solutions to the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, there should be increased dialogue between Europe and America.

The core issue is the maintenance of mutual respect. As it was folly for the French Salon to refuse the new art created by the Impressionists in the 1860s, it would also be folly for Germany to become deaf to the vibrancy of the United States. Americans can be infuriating but they are also essential when Europe searches for answers to fundamental problems. A better orchestration of our capabilities should have a high priority even if some sacred idols must be toppled in the process. The best innovation comes from questioning basic assumptions from a variety of perspectives. Europe should not forget America or its commitment to greater understanding.

James Cricks, an instructor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, recently returned to Kansas from Stuttgart, Germany.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

January 22, 2008

Dino Paoli De La Hoya, none, Bronze Contributor (25)

I like this comment! What's this?

Hello,

I live in Europe for several years now, and find it a bit of a shock that a growing number of European youth have a negative attitude towards the United States. I find this behavior quite troubling, considering how much monetary aid was given to Europe after WWII. The United States helped Europe back on its feet, and helped create the base of the prosperity that Europe has today.

I think that Europe and the United States share an important alliance, and one that needs not be split at the seam. The United States was there for Europe when it needed the most help, and without a doubt, would do it once more.

At this moment in time, Europe is experiencing a rise in prosperity and prestige on the global stage. With this increasing amount of status, I only hope that those in power in Europe, along with the European media, do not forget the country that helped lay the cornerstones for their prosperity.

January 24, 2008

Benjamin Lucas Schoo, Atlantic Community, Platinum Contributor (197)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr de la Hoya,

I agree with your comment that there is a general negative attitude in Europe towards the US and that this constitutes a problem. I however find the reason why you are troubled by this less than convincing.

Firstly, i don't think that the US aided war-torn Europe financially out of pure altruism. Rather, the US were eager to stop the advance of communism and saw a capitalist and prosperous Europe as only means to do so.
Also, the Marshall plan benefited the US by developing valuable trading partners and reliable allies among the West European nations.
Finally, part of the agreement for accepting the aid was that the countries concerned would have to open up their economies to US markets and much of the money received was actually spent on US produced goods, benefiting the US economy, which flourished during the years of the Marshall plan.

I do not wish to downplay the role that US aid played in the reconstruction of Europe, in the creation of the EU, which has helped to maintain peace on the European continent for 60 years, or in the prosperity of modern day Europe. However, current animosity towards the US has more to do with the current US foreign policy, than with their foreign policy 60 years ago.

Saying that Europe should provide unconditional backing/love for the US sounds to me rather naive and has, as least to me, a slight imperialistic tone.
I also don't remember anyone in the US recently bringing up the role France played in the American war of independence 250 years ago or showing particular gratitude towards them. Especially not when people started to invent those dratted "Freedom Fries".

Finally, I just want to say that I agree with your assessment that Europe and the United States share an important alliance, which needs to remain strong in order to meet the most important challenges today.

Thank you for contributing to Atlantic Community,
Regards,
Benjamin Schoo

January 25, 2008

James Cricks, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Silver Contributor (65)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Schoo,
I agree our cooperation in Europe was, and should be continue, to be a mix of realism and idealism. The US has a legitimate interest in ensuring Europe is a strong and stable partner. We are not involved for charity. We need this cooperative relationship to continue because neither the US nor Europe has a monopoly on solving the huge problems we are facing. A negative attitude in Europe can be corrosive and self-defeating. As the stock markets have recently shown, we are more integrated than most people understand.

I disagree that the US did not understand its debt to France. As Colonel C. E. Stanton said in 1917, “Lafayette, we are here!” As "American Diplomacy" rightfully claims: "In 1917, many Americans were already in France serving the cause of the Allies. They had been arriving to repay Lafayette by the hundreds since the earliest days of the conflict, long before the United States declared war and the American Expeditionary Force began to make its appearance. American volunteers in substantial numbers enlisted in the French Foreign Legion as early as August 1914; many fought in the trenches that first winter of the long, terrible conflict, and thereafter. Others left comfortable homes or university lives to serve in the American Ambulance Field Service, driving the wounded from battlefields on the Western Front. As an example of the numbers involved, the fledgling French air force, le Service Aéronautique, alone included some 300 young Americans too brave and too impatient to wait for America to declare war. Most of them lost their lives flying in combat before the war ended." We continued our gratefulness in WWII and beyond. I would hope that we will forget the help we received.

Thanks for your interest and support for the alliance. "French Fries" was a bad name in the first place, the Belgians think they invented this dish and I agree they should get credit.

January 25, 2008

Andreas Beckmann, Atlantische Initiative e. V., Silver Contributor (56)

I like this comment! What's this?

A few comments on Mr. Cricks' analysis, which I generally share and support. They are meant as my contribution to the indeed necessary "questioning of basic assumptions".

Yes, Europeans should engage in continual learning from the dynamic and value-driven U.S. That also includes, however, learning on how definitely NOT to do certain things. Some key words in the latter respect would be
- concentrating on ad-hoc alliances of the willing instead of working patiently with key allies;
- communicating to the rest of the world in a tone that conveys little but arrogance and ignorance (even if it is not meant that way), thus undermining all political credibility;
- violating, in places such as Guantanamo, or Abu Ghraib (and many many more), the very fundamental values (and even one's own laws!) that one is fighting for;
- deliberately misleading the rest of the world on vital strategic issues such as the Iraqi WMD.

On the other hand, Americans should also learn from Europeans - and that also includes do's and don't's.

Yes, the West consumes at much higher rates than the rest of the world. This is not per se illegitimate as long as the West produces, and contributes to global GDP, at comparably high rates. The U.S. for example, who produce appr. one quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions also account for appr. one quarter of the global GDP. While this fact by no ways means that Americans shouldn't step up their efforts towards more energy efficiency (I am confident they will do so very successfully in rather little time), it might serve to debunk quick and cheap judgements about alleged "injustices".

Yes, the West should work towards ways for the inclusion of muslim culture (to the extent that there really is such a thing as a distict "Muslim" culture). That effort, however, must be confined to the deplorably small minority among muslims who fully accept and respect our secular state orders, and have undergone some sort of enlightenment (like we had to do only a few centuries ago). Inclusion and integration can not mean giving up the very essence of what we stand and, if necessary, fight for:
- human rights (as defined in western constitutions as well as the the UN Charter, or the European Declaration on Human Rights;
- religious tolerance based on the acknowledgement that none of the great world religions is superior to any other;
- free societies based on secular law rather than religious documents;
- pluralist, liberal democracy.

One comment on Mr. Schoo: Yes, *of course* U.S. policies always combined elements of altruism and self-interest. It shouldn't be any other way, as this blends reasonably fair intentions with sound realism: reliability, predictability, and credibility. Beware of the complete idealists or those who think they are nothing but altruists! Contrary to popular belief it's people with that infantile kind of thinking who are responsible for the worst crimes in mankind's records.

January 30, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree with much of what Herr Beckmann wrote, including this:

"concentrating on ad-hoc alliances of the willing instead of working patiently with key allies"

Agreed. But I think three leaders flunked this test in 2003, not one as you seem to believe. Not only Bush but also Chirac and Schroeder. Chirac wrong-footed the US, first leading Bush to believe France would pursue one policy vis Iraq, then suddenly slapping him with a volte-face after the US committed itself to the UN debate which Chirac wished for and Tony Blair successfully pushed Bush to participate in.

Bush and Schroeder were more consistent and at least avoided this mistake. But it will be a long time before a US President extends the kind of trust to a French President - because of Chirac's actions in 2003.

In defense of Chirac I'd have to admit that he did make a sustained effort to mend fences and work in concert with the US toward shared goals in 2005-2006, perhaps even more so than Merkel did. But it was like letting the horses out after the barn burnt down - too ittle too late.

Schroeder's mistake was a different one, I think. There is a common view in the US that the US has pent a lot of resources since 1948 upon the defense of Europe, and particularly upon the defense of Germany. Yes, it should be considered enlightened self-interest (as Germans frequently point out). They are correct.

But..... The first time Germany & Germans were asked to make the slightest effort to help out the US, the response was 95% no, and even the 5% was grudged and limited severely .

As an American I asked only that Germany act with 'enlightened self-interest' in this crisis. What Germany did under Schroeder's debatable guidance was not 'enlightened self-interest'. It was policy seemingly purely driven by domestic opinion polls - and the precedent is not reassuring. Prior to 9/11 I rarely doubted that Germany was a staunch ally who would do their share in meeting the obligations of the NATO alliance. Today I rarely believe that Germany will do anything more than the minimum which they believe they can get away with (and much less than that minimum from their ally's perspective).

January 30, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

"Saying that Europe should provide unconditional backing/love for the US sounds to me rather naive and has, as least to me, a slight imperialistic tone."

I doubt many in the US would say that Europe has done that - ever. Despite being defended

"I also don’t remember anyone in the US recently bringing up the role France played in the American war of independence 250 years ago or showing particular gratitude towards them. Especially not when people started to invent those dratted “Freedom Fries”."

Interesting that you bring up Lafayette and DeGrasse but fail to mention two far more contemporary events - the US intervention in WWI and WWII. One could almost infer that you believe that Lafayette counts but Pershing and Patton do not? Or perhaps your curriculum emphasised some events over others - well they all do.

I'd say the debt was paid off in 1945. More than paid off, paid with heavy interest. I won't assert it was paid in 1917 because the US effort in WWI was somewhat less than the French effort in 1781 - proportionally that is. But the situations were not dissimular on the grand scale - American forces won the strategically important victories in the Revolution. France helped force the British to sue for peace. Similarly the US did not win WWI, France and Britain fought and bled for that victory. Although one could argue that US intervention was a large factor in preventing the German offences in spring of 1918 from succeeding. How important that is depends upon whether one believes that those offensives could have ended the war in the German's favor. I think that historical question is finely balanced with valid arguments on both sides.

But I don't think there is any question about the outcome of WWII. Absent US intervention the Third Reich might still be in existence even today. And bad as King George III was - being ruled by such a man wasn't remotely like the rule of Hitler would have been, no? So the potential adverse consequences were even greater.

February 4, 2008

Sougil Alizadeh, University of Reading, UK ( PhD student in Politics and International Relations), Bronze Contributor (19)

I like this comment! What's this?

I also agree that Europe’s cooperation with the US is something totally inevitable considering their mutual need to address the major global problems in a more concerted way, however, looking back in the history, the problem of hegemony has been a major issue in transatlantic relations since the US emerged as a great power in the early 20th century. U.S. hegemonic presence which seeks to secure unilateral interests without considering multilateral benefits and consent for its European allies has caused its allies to go into a re-evaluation of their relations with America.

I think the most important question that Europeans should find a certain answer to it is that whether they are willing to live under the American leadership or not and if the answer is yes, what sort of leadership is in the benefit of the European interests?

In my opinion, Europeans can play a crucial role to direct America into a more reasonable sort of leadership that can be beneficial not only for both sides of transatlantic, but also for the whole world. A healthy relationship between Europe and America can commit and oblige America to more multilateral foreign policies and to force it to turn into a more benevolent hegemon rather than a neo-imperialist power.

February 6, 2008

Andreas Beckmann, Atlantische Initiative e. V., Silver Contributor (56)

I like this comment! What's this?

AFAIK, the U.S. have been the most benevolent hegemon in history. Today, after the strategic and communication disasters of the Bush jr. administration ("neo-imperialist" seems to overstate the facts, however), it seems to me that they have temporarily lost that hegemonic position: Too much of their economic, military and - above all - political power (i. e. credibility and leadership of the free world through positive example) was wasted.

This loss of U.S. leadership has created a dangerous power vacuum. "Europeans" are currently totally incapable of filling that gap, because they lack common assessments of key global problems, convincing common polices to address these problems, and above all, the means necessary to enforce anything almost anywhere in the world. Europe's proclaimed ambitions are, in almost every field, far higher than its real abilities. As long as this does not change, the free world will remain dependent on U.S. leadership as it had been for most of the last century.
This unfortunately means for Europeans that they need to accept most U.S. decisions: You can only influence your partners effectively if you play a constructive role and offer substantial will and ability of your own. Americans themselves have long begged Europe to become a stronger partner, because the burden of leadership weighs heavily. These requests have hardly had any real effect, so I can understand American decision makers who are losing the patience to wait for Europe's opinion, let alone action....even if I deplore that.
A "more multinational foreign policy" also requires strong transatlantic cohesion, common assessments, objectives and conduct. Otherwise we do not have multilateralism, but paralysis and chaos. That would not help solve a single global problem, but rather aggravate them, and would only encourage others to fill the power vacuum. Even if the dreadful Bush administration was to stay in power forever (remind you: It will go away in just one year), I still can not see any of the current challengers to U.S. leadership whom I would like to see taking over their role.

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

January 22, 2008 | 8 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

Don't Forget America

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?